Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

NotSanguine writes with this quote from a NY Times article:
"The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media, with five criminal cases so far under President Obama, compared with three under all previous presidents combined. This week, a grand jury in Virginia heard testimony in a continuing investigation of WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy group, a rare effort to prosecute those who publish secrets, rather than those who leak them. The string of cases reflects a broad belief across two administrations and in both parties in Congress that leaks have gotten out of hand, endangering intelligence agents and exposing American spying methods."

If I may quote the epic Rap New 6 [youtube.com]:(impersonated) Hillary Clinton:
This is a case of high treason
It's against the land of the brave and divine freedom
We're the good guys, for democracy we fight evil
and we wage peace around the world, proud of the flag

These leaks could devalue this powerful brand,
bring military operations straight to a halt.
Our shareholders, clients and partners would plainly revolt.

I used to feel bad about that whole Nicaragua thing, until one day I met a woman who fought as a revolutionary in the 80s. A little in awe, and a bit embarrassed, I asked her, "so you fought against the Contras?" She replied with some condescension, "no, the Contras were a different group." Then tried to explain to me which she was fighting for. The revolutionary history of Nicaragua is so complicated that really the William Walker filibuster in the 1800s is probably more memorable than the Iran-Contra affa

Non Classified data Is paid for by the public, so is owned by the public.

By separating classified and non-classified data, all that you are doing is giving motivation to classify more information.

Any and every action made by an elected official or their appointees must be public knowledge for a representative democracy to work. Otherwise the people represented have no way of knowing if their interests are being met. As long as we allow information to remain hidden from the people of the country then we have nothing but tyranny.

For most things on the list, no, they don't need protection. Treat them like passwords. If discovered, change them, don't legislate their secrecy and keep using them.

For instance, military plans. If they do leak, assume they could have leaked twice and instead of cracking down, make new plans.

BTW, if you're afraid of terrorism you're a mindless puppet. Look at 9/11 - oppressed freedom fighters kill 3000 people to bring attention to ongoing injustice perpetrated by us. They're labelled terrorists and we kill well over a million people in response.

Do you not think that items in the following list may deserve to be protected?

The simple rule should be this. Government should not act with out fully knowledgeable consent of the the people whom the govern. Any action taken in secret is without the fully knowledgeable consent of the people. Any action taken without consent of the people is tyranny.

To put it succinctly, no, the government should not maintain any secrets, including those on your list.

(The proof is in the pudding. The biggest white collar crime in the history of the world was bought and paid for. And damn, what a return...)

The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get.

Really? Then why is the US ranked 22nd, just above Uruguay, in the Corruption Perceptions Index [wikipedia.org]? Why has the *perceived* corruption in the US been declining steadily since the Index was created?

Corruption has always been part of US politics, but kept in check at least for appearances' sake. But since the Iran/Contra scandal, it appears that the concern over appearances has eroded. Now you have a situation where the corrupted know that there will always be one-quarter to one-third of the US population who will oppose any criticism of the US, like this AC here, so all the kleptocrats have to do is wrap themselves in a flag and cheer "GO USA!" and they have an automatic voting block that will also faithfully defend them in public forums from Meet the Press to/b/.

Corruption is happening here because of the belief by so many that, "it can't happen here!"

I'm sorry, but that's not evidence of corruption. TARP was one of an extremely small number of options available. The others being nationalizing the banking industry or buying the toxic assets. The debate was done openly, and people knew who voted for what. Just because it wasn't wise and benefited corporate interests doesn't make it corruption. It makes it a poor decision, corruption is a completely different matter, even if the ultimate results are similar.

Look up on Wikileaks (if it is still legal to even view it) about how we were covering up for a weapons company that was giving 9 year old boys as party favors to seal a deal in Afghanistan and the SAME company had done the SAME thing in Kosovo a decade before with 11 year old girls and we were STILL hiring them!

I'm sorry but if selling little kids as fucktoys just to seal a deal ain't corrupt enough for ya I don't know what is. The money and power have become so concentrated at the top frankly they don't g

That's one example. So, you're saying because we're not the least corrupt government in the world, that we can't be about as uncorrupted as they get? I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid counter point, and the ad hominem doesn't help your case.

There are some corruption problems in the US, but to paint the government as being extremely corrupt is just plain ignorant. If you don't believe me, just look at Italy, they've got severe corruption problems.

You are using your definition of "corruption" to validate your argument. What one man sees as normal another could see as corruption. The argument then devolves into determining what degree of corruption is necessary to support one sides arguments against the other. And there are already open forums, independent citizen groups, and the Freedom of Information Act. But the majority do not use these means when challenging government actions.

One party that uses two divisions to pretend to be two distinct parties is slightly more free than one party that drops the entire facade altogether.

Jesse Ventura gave a good explanation of how politics works. He said it's like pro wrestling. Sure, in the ring the wrestlers talk trash about each other and appear to be fighting each other. After the rigged match, they go out together and have a beer as friends. With wrestling it's the advertising money that does the rigging; with politics it's campaign funds.

I think they just practice the same strategy - get into office, spend everything you can while cancelling anything the other team was doing, then sit back and take credit for whatever 21st century stuff happened while you were in.

In that case, why the exclusivity? Have you ever actually read about what happens when any third party tries to even get on the ballot? Suddenly the most obscure laws and technical details become supremely important. It is not a straightforward process and it is not intended to be.

Then after getting on the ballot, there's the matter of funding your campaign so you even have a chance of election. Unless you're independently very wealthy like Ross Perot was, you either join one of the two major parties and play by their rules or you have no support. Even with his billionaire bankroll, Perot could do nothing more than split the Republican vote.

The two parties are different branches of a single organization. That organization's purpose is to do for modern politics what the guilds of old did for trade: to raise the barrier of entry in order to lock out competitors. Then the duopoly (really a monopoly, not that there's much difference) is maintained and can never be seriously challenged.

To see this purpose, this function of a guild, is crucial if you are to understand the actual nature and purpose of the USA's two-party system. Only a certain kind of politician will be vetted and accepted by it. That's why the government is going to grow in size and power no matter who wins the election. They're both puppets because both are afraid to bite the hands that feed them. They are not free to vote their conscience even if they do have one.

He's using Perot as the most obvious example of his claims. Just about everybody else who considered running third party faces the same music. You don't have to go for the big seat to see that. How many independents (or other party) are there in the US congress? Senate? I may be an idealist but I don't think the political views of the entire US people neatly fit in just two somewhat similar moulds.

Perot is a counter-example to his claim......it shows that a motivated person can mount an independent campaign (and really, if you can't raise enough to hire a lawyer to help you get through all the pitfalls, you're not going to be able to afford a nationwide marketing campaign anyway). Perot lost, not because of the other two parties, but because he single-mindedly focused on issues that people didn't care so much about, especially the second time he ran (why would people care about the deficit when Clint

I think they just practice the same strategy - get into office, spend everything you can while cancelling anything the other team was doing, then sit back and take credit for whatever 21st century stuff happened while you were in.

Sorry to reply twice to you but it's vital that we get rid of this "gee I guess it just innocently worked out this way with no deliberate engineering and must reflect what the people want" mentality.

If they wanted to cancel anything the other team was doing, then why is Guantanamo Bay still in operation? This was something our current President promised to shut down during his campaign. Oh he also promised to bring the troops home from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the above has happened. Al

I should point out that some people today still believe that Kennedy was exposing "the Freemasons" in that speech, which is a crock of bull. The Freemasons are hardly a "secret society". Their meetings may not be public, but they operate openly and publicly, not out of closets or behind closed doors.

And to make it clear, I do not agree with much about Kennedy's politics. But as a person aside from his leftist economic leanings, I have a lot of respect for him.

Firstly, dont you think the whole left/right thing is a bit of a false dichotomy? Why should believing in one policy necessarily discern your beliefs in other ares? Because you are part of a side?

Secondly, You only have to look at history to see that beliefs held by conservatives at any one time end up being seen as unacceptable by the majority in time, eg, equal rights for non-"white" Americans and women. Resisting change is futile, flux is the base state.

"Firstly, dont you think the whole left/right thing is a bit of a false dichotomy?"

It may be now, but it definitely was not 50 years ago, when he was in office.

"Firstly, dont you think the whole left/right thing is a bit of a false dichotomy?"

I disagree. Certainly that holds true for certain periods of history, but even then it is a gross generalization. Left and Right have, at different times, both demonstrated great wisdom in some areas while simultaneously engaging in complete idiocy in other areas. I do not think either party has a monopoly on that.

I don't know that I can agree. Certain practices of the left-wingers have (and increasingly are, especially in regard to the economy) also come to be seen as unacceptable.

I think we have to distinguish between fiscal policy, and social policy. Certainly some social attitudes that were common among many (but my no means all) conservatives are now seen as barbaric and unacceptable. On the other hand, certain fiscal policies of the Left have come to be seen (very much increasingly, in recent years) as just

"Secondly, You only have to look at history to see that beliefs held by conservatives at any one time end up being seen as unacceptable by the majority in time, eg, equal rights for non-"white" Americans and women. Resisting change is futile, flux is the base state."

Well, maybe we could have this freedom if non-Americans in this country and across the world would all agree to stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA whenever the US government wishes to inform its citizens.

Yes it is. I believe that was the Regan era you speak of? Well this is pretty much the same mentality.

Chomsky referred to the dems and repubs as "two arms of the business party" and it could never be more true than today.

What you are seeing with wiki (and other) leaks is an open challenge to the government-corp-media stranglehold on the truth that currently exists. (Not just in the US BTW - Murdoch and CO. are worldwide now)Obviously the government-corp-media machine needs to kill this and the legislators faithfully rise to the challenge.This "machine" of course is now heavily blurred in terms of who does what, but then you would expect that considering how closely they work together. Eg. ex politicians on the news, ex CEOs of Goldman (& others) advising the POTUS, new people hired as PR and spokespeople, lobbyists etc

So what is the big surprise?

PS: Sorry for being so cynical but at this point I really cannot see any other appropriate response, can you?

"American Freedom" is still a going concern. Your take on the US from Eastern Europe was probably so warped by the informational bias (both anti and pro) you would not recognize the country if you were to visit. People in the US are always pilloried as knowing nothing about the rest of the world but these same people are just as clueless about the real US. They tend to judge the US based on it's exported entertainment.

You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right? The President has powers, but ending Iraq and GITMO in a responsible way aren't within his ability. Yes, he could just order the military out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences and he could just order the gates at GITMO opened, and for the personnel to look the other way. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's an acceptable solution to the problem.

As long as the GOP continues to obstruct government, there's little that the Pres

Simply blaming the Republicans doesn't hold water since the Democrats had a majority in Congress and the White House for two years. I have no doubt that the Republicans refused to cooperate, but the Democrats failed us, too.

Nice try, but that's not actually true. The Democrats never had a veto proof majority during the 111th congress, there was a period between July and September of 2009 when they had precisely 60 votes, meaning that they had to have absolutely every member of their party on board plus the 2 independents in order to get the cloture vote.

It's easy to make those sorts of ignorant potshots when you don't know what you're talking about.

I would like someone to explain to me how the Thomas Drake case involved anything remotely resembling the endangerment of intelligence agents. Furthermore, the domestic spying he exposed was illegal. Exposing that is not a crime, and nobody should be 'worried' about 'exposing' crimes. Furthermore, he did not release any classified information, nor was he even charged with doing so.

I do not understand how the Kim case, has no relationship whatsoever to intelligence agents, nor spying. It is about educated guessing about North Korea's weapons testing. One time, in a single telephone conversation, with a reporter. Where is the 'intelligence agent' here? Where is the 'spying methods'?

The Manning case has almost nothing to do with spying methods, as far as we know. Otherwise, they probably would have charged him under 18 USC 798 - they didn't. They charged him with 34 other things. 3 of those charges relate to the Icleandic banking scandal - i do not understand how that has anything to do with spying methods nor with intelligence agents. Is every state department employee now an 'intelligence agent'?

The Leibowitz case - we have no idea what the details of the case are. Even the judge doesn't know the details of the case. Leibowitz plead out because they scared him. What little we know is that he found out the FBI was engaged in illegal activity related to signals intelligence work. Two guesses as to what that is.

I will admit, the Sterling case is about intelligence agents and spying methods. It is about how the CIA accidentally screwed up and gave Iran accurate nuclear weapons information instead of inaccurate information. Let me just ask you - do you think the public is better off knowing that, or not?

The Wikileaks case - well, please let me know when there is concrete evidence that any intelligence agents have been harmed by wikileaks. Some ambassadors have been harmed - then again, ambassadors are quite often simply the biggest campaign donors to the president. That's how ambassadorships work. If those people are 'intelligence agents', well, I have to wonder about the wisdom of making campaign donors into intelligence agents. Shouldn't we be picking professionals instead?

I also haven't seen anything yet about any wikileaks cables that reveal spying information. Gun camera footage is all over youtube, should all of those youtube users now be charged under the Espionage act too?

Americans like to believe that their government is all that is right and good in the world, and that it is not in fact a hypocritical institution like every other government on the face of the planet. We are th GOOD GOVERNMNET(tm). We don't do bad things like assassinations or back-room deals or torture or extraordinary renditions or any number of things BAD GOVERNMENTS(tm) do. And our government is only too happy to oblige by covering up or glossing over or secreting away any information that may show them

Don't include me in that "our". If I caught someone doing those things, I would happily -- I might even say gleefully -- try to find some way to bring them to justice.

When the government does something that The People clearly oppose, then it is not The People doing it, and it is wrong to spread the blame. These things are being and have been done by people in government who are no better than criminals. Are criminals, in fact.

"When the government does something that The People clearly oppose, then it is not The People doing it, and it is wrong to spread the blame. These things are being and have been done by people in government who are no better than criminals. Are criminals, in fact."

So, you elect criminals, and then when they do criminal things, you pretend you didn't elect them? Whether Americans think they should be held responsible for the actions of their government is irrelevant. Your living standards are too high for

See, there you go. I didn't elect the sumbidge. Other people did. And it's debatable whether Bush was properly elected last time, at all.

"Your living standards are too high for your to look around and see what is being done in your name."

For your information, "the people" of the United States are about f*ing fed up with their government, and have started trying to change things in ways they know how, without actually destroying it in the process.

A lot of the damage was done by prior generations, but it has certainly come to a head in the last decade or two. Problems that have been around that long are n

"What of people who are attempting to do something but are outnumbered by those who oppose them (and can't get anything done until their numbers are greater)? I don't see how everyone can be blamed for the actions of the government (certainly not those who are at least trying)."

"I would like someone to explain to me how the Thomas Drake case involved anything remotely..."

The crime Mr. Drake committed (other than being rather gullible as to the real objectives behind the US intel establishment, now majority privatized) was to point out the thievery and/or embezzlement going on with the outsourcing of the $3 million contract which would total up to at least $1 billion. This is the primary purpose and reason for the existence of the Financial-Intelligence-Complex, founded by the

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton. This is from the same guy that said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

"All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Acton, of course, didn't know about psychopaths and malignant narcissists. Neither class is "mentally weak and easily corruptible"; both seek power to use it for their own, corrupt ends. Acton, however, was referring to people who started out with good intentions. Interestingly, the Palin emails seem to suggest that she is one of those - initially she meant well but now seems to be on a full-blown narcissist power trip.

I disagree. Psychopaths and narcissists have essential problems with their psychology. They are weaknesses. If one but knows that those weaknesses exist, those people can be manipulated.

Unfortunately, it has seemed to be other power-mongers who have been doing most of the manipulating...

I am aware that Acton was referring to good intentions, and that is why I disagree with him. I think most of the people in Congress, for example, who went in with good intentions still have those good intentions. Howev

I am not familiar with the story, but it sounds interesting. There was another story, by Heinlein (I think), in which there was a President who was chosen by lottery to serve for a limited term. While I think the lottery idea is probably not very practical, it is at least an interesting idea.

1) the US does whatever the hell it wants. it does not ask permission and it seeks out those who disagree for intent of harm.

2) this is not a disney movie, this life we all lead. the line between good and bad guys is often non-existent. stop thinking in binary fashion. the US isn't good and it isn't evil, its JUST ANOTHER COUNTRY run by rich white men who like to keep the power base the way it is (and pretty much has been).

3) we spy. they spy. everyone spies. not only that, but countries do not respect their own people and will spy on them. kids, learn this. be watchful of EVERYTHING you say or write or photo. this is now universal since all countries have latched onto this 'we control your life, entirely' mentality.

4) power corrupts and the more you give the government, the more they'll screw you over (now or later) with it. no such thing as 'temporary powers'. don't ever fall for THAT line again, please.

5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.

none of this is taught in schools (on purpose). we intentionally lie to our kids when we raise them. then, about teen age, they see the lies we have been telling them. problem is, we have already raised generations of people on pure lies who believe in this 'two party system' and that if you have done nothing wrong, (...). we have a lot of really dumb cattle walking around as human beings with a totally false idea of how the world really works.

start with truth about what our world is like. you can't fix things if you don't even see them for how they really are.

No, he's a rich black man who lies out his ass. I'm not picking on him for his color, but for his blatant lying. He has been worse in that regard than most other Presidents. In many cases, he has done exactly the opposite of his campaign promises.

The guy is as much white as he is black. I hate the way the media always refer to him as a black man. It is reminiscent of the bad old days, when all people of colour were seen as lesser and any "black" blood had you relegated to that category. We might call him African American (bearing in mind he is also European American) if his heritage must be singled out.

You have a point. The only reason I mentioned color at all is because the other poster had intentionally put it that way. I simply do not like the guy or his politics, and I would not like them no matter what his color is. As far as I am concerned, he's just a Bush clone with even less scruples.

Let's talk reality here: a lot of self-described "people of color" celebrated his election and were proud to have him as "their representative" in the White House. I didn't make that up; it was all over the news. And I don't particularly blame them: it was shown that it is possible to get someone who is not white elected to the highest office in the country. I count that as a positive.

However, now that Obama has shown his true colors (no pun intended), what I am saying is that *I* would not be proud to

5) cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced and have this need for control. the higher the position, the more corruptable the job is and the more 'attractive' it is to such sick people. beware of those in authority and realize WHY they seeked out those kinds of jobs. avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life, they are not your friends and not worth your friendship. they'll stab you at first chance if it suits them.

This quote reflects a really depressing world view and a lack of perspective. For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree.

I am a lawyer, and I sought out my job because I want to help people. The same can be said for most other lawyers I know. Cops, judges, poli

"For the most part, those in authority in the US are doing a fine job. Look at other, truly repressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, and the atrocities they are daily committing against their citizens. That doesn't happen here nearly as often, or to nearly as great a degree."

I have heard that argument quite a lot, and it's complete bullshit. The fact that someone else has it worse does not mean that you don't have it bad.

If you were in a room full of people who were getting both legs broken, would you preach about how wonderful life is, when they decide to just break one of your arms and are coming to do it?

if you were not in a position of control (face it, just by being a lawyer you can talk your way out of 99% of the shit that common ordinary guys can't) you would probably not feel that people 'like you' are so trustworthy.

if you got caught by a bad cop, you can have your buddies, somewhere, help you.

what about us?

live life like us, esentially, powerless. do that for 1 year. you come back one year, then we talk, yes?

cops, judges, politicians, lawyers; those in authority are there because they are mentally unbalanced..............avoid dealing or interacting with these people in life,

Wow, way to close your mind to the very data that could change your pre-concieved notions. Have you ever had a cop friend? Saying, "don't talk to X group of people" is a common trick among cults. Hope you don't close your mind to other stuff in the same way.

The advantage of the government holding this power though, is you can vote for someone else. Unfortunately, in the US there aren't enough options and elections are few and far between. Also the media is largely crappy and invested in the current political situation.

Well, therein lies the problem. We can either vote for the scum in office now, or we can vote for whichever totally batshit crazy candidate the Repugs will throw out there this time around.

The problem isn't the options, the problem is that the election system is set up to reward extreme candidates. The system around here has more or less solved that problem, it's just that folks in other states haven't caught on. We've got a top two primary system where the top two candidates can be from any party and even the same party. So far that's led to the liberal areas electing more moderate candidates. Ditto for the conservative areas. Additionally, we don't allow the winners to draw the districting

While I agree that part of what you say is true, you must be careful not to make a sweeping generalization out of it. I know some cops, some judges and some lawyers (no politicians thankfully) and they are honest, respectful and responsible.

Lawyers, maybe. Judges, unlikely. Cops, no. There are too many bad cops for there to be any significant number of good cops. It is a cop's job to stop wrongdoing by other cops, and they don't; even if there are some who do not do wrong themselves, they will still pro

"Judges do not posses absolute power. They can only operate in the area limited by law."

No, that's how it's supposed to be. If you really think that's how it is, then you haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court over the last decade or so.

They have deliberately ignored precedent and overturned long-standing rulings. They have deliberately and consistently sided with the Federal government in a bid to seize more central power. I could go on... the list is long.

That is probably true. I was singling out a small group in order to make a point. But I must say that I am pretty disgusted with the present Supreme Court, which has not seemed to be doing its actual job.

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

In late February 2008, Mulva was “summoned to Sirte for a half-hour ‘browbeating’” from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel... U.S. oil and gas companies,” the cable said.

Wikileaks was the source for these articles. If all cables get leaked, it is difficult for US to pursue its interests.

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

Note that this is a quote from the author of the Salon article, not from the leaked cables.

That Ghadafi has been a thorn in the side of the US for decades, for many reasons, is no particular secret.

Then the old jokes start in strange new ways:
We have eedom of press, but not freedom after publication. A source, like an asset faces the Espionage Act or PATRIOT Act and its game over.
Expect to see the word "journalist" been used much less due to the little bit of legal cover it still provides.
Whistleblower protection "under seal" seems to be gone too now:)
You can talk about computers, sport, politicians, celebrities, just dont follow the money, source code, drugs or hint at lawyer written statements

This is bi-partisan because grabbing more power for the executive branch is bi-partisan. The book "Takeover" by Charlie Savage (also of the NYT) details much about how the Bush 2 administration worked to increase executive power, but also how it has been a tradition for a century before that - and persecution of whistleblowers is an important part of it.

Two stories from "Takeover" stuck with me.

One was the story of an ethics advisor for the Justice Dept, Jesslyn Radack. When John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban", was charged with many counts that led to 20 years in jail, based almost entirely on his own statement given while duct-taped to a board, naked and blindfolded with an untreated bullet wound in his leg, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft stated publicly that while the statement was given without a lawyer present, that was fine since he did not have a lawyer at the time. Alas, Ms. Radack had already notified the FBI that Lindh's father had retained council for him and notified Justice, and that they should not interrogate him - they just did, anyway. And Radack had kept the E-mails, then sent them to a reporter. It was not in her mind at the time that this was "whistleblowing" she felt she was correcting erroneous statements; releasing the information was no crime at all, since it was unclassified. For this, she found herself:

* Fired, from the private law firm she worked for (they consulted to Justice)* Subjected to a year-long criminal investigation, though no charges were ever filed, since she had committed no crime* Referred to for "discipline" by the bar associations in all the states she was licensed to practice in, via a secret report that she was not allowed to see* Placed on the "selectee" version of the no-fly list - meaning she was *always* "randomly selected" for full off-with-the-underwear search for every single flight.

Talk about a chilling effect. Thou Shalt Not Embarrass The Justice Department, even with the simple truth that it got excited and eager for a headline and made a mistake.

Just so that this isn't seen as partisan, the other story is about a democrat: Harry Truman. (Who also felt the whole Korean War(!) was strictly an executive branch decision, no congressional authorization needed... take THAT, Libya protestors!) A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, "dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets". It's been used to shut down every lawsuit about torture and unlawful detention that came after 9/11. But there's no such privilege in the Constitution. It comes from a Supreme Court decision, "US vs. Reynolds", where the survivors of 3 civilian scientists killed in a B-29 bomber crash in Georgia, 1948, while doing missile research. The government argued that the judge had to dismiss the suit without even seeing the crash report himself, lest "secret electronics" be revealed, and it was upheld - then used about 60 times since. In 2000, the daughter of one of the victims found the crash report, declassified, on the Internet. It contained NOTHING about secret electronics - it contained proof that there had been negligent maintenance of the bomber, and negligent lack of training for the civilians on how to escape the aircraft. The government had used the claim to avoid embarrassment, not to mention losing a lawsuit.

As Charlie Savage summed it up, "The central case on which the State Secrets Privilege rests, then, was a fraud. The Truman administration had lied to the courts and gotten away with it."

So that's why you need whistleblowers. And that's why governments persecute them as ruthlessly as possible; it's about executive power, the effort to restore America to the status of having a King who is above the law - partly by exempting the executive from laws that the rest of us must obey, partly by ensuring that most of their lawbreaking is never revealed in the first place, so they don't have to fight for that exemption very often.

"A major avoidance of government transparency is enabled by the "state secrets" privilege, in which the government can tell a court, 'dismiss this lawsuit; to argue it, we'd have to reveal State Secrets'. "

However, just about a month or so ago, a Federal judge ruled that the government cannot do that. They can take measures to ensure that the public cannot see those 'secrets' in the course of a trial, but the government cannot withhold that information from the judge or jury.

Unfortunately, I do not have a citation for that decision. Maybe some person out there who is reading this has one.'

That was exciting to hear and I rushed to Google. I tried [ "state secrets privilege" ruling against ] as my search phrase.

Got nuthin' but the recent (May 2011) ruling that was still in favour of the SSP - but "narrowed" the grounds for using it. The one before that was the 9th circuit, Sept 2010, that the EFF described as

"Unfortunately, abdicating its responsibility is just what the Court did. It ordered summary dismissal of the complaint without allowing any discovery, or presentation of the public evi

But you are correct, my memory was not serving me well. What I was unknowing referring to was the Drake Case [fas.org], in which the government's bungled attempts to keep information secret nevertheless would have served to bias the jury against the defendant.

Somehow, I got that confused with another case in which the judge told the government (pre-trial) that they could use the established secrecy procedures to withhold confidential information from the public, but

The transparency initiative of President Obama was a campaign lie. I remember him preaching the importance of transparency in government and having an open and accessible government. If the Obama Administration seeks to criminalize attempts to hold Obama to his campaign promise, then he simply pandered to the voting public. For the record, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, both are misguided and self-serving parties.

Don't you think there should be some legal way to bind politicians to, at least, attempting to achieve what they claim they will. Or, at very least, not doing the opposite.
Here, in the UK, the conservatives got in (in a way) saying they would ring fence spending on the NHS (national health service) and are now going about trying to privatise it.

If only the administration put half the effort into punishing various people who broke US laws on surrveilance and torture that they're putting into punishing the people who let the American people find out about it.

The Justice Department shows no sign of rethinking its campaign to punish unauthorized disclosures to the news media,

I can't read the article as it seems to require some sort of login but this case isn't about punishing unauthorized disclosures TO the news media. It's about punishing unauthorized reporting of information BY the news media. Unless you think that Wikileaks isn't a medium for news, which it clearly is. Possibly the scariest element of this campaign is attempts to establish some news media as in some sense official and free and others as not.

Kinda like Animal Farm: All press are free (but some are more free than others.)

People in the government who leak unauthorized information are people who have willfully disobeyed rules and procedures and display their own sense of self importance. This is not something to be encouraged, but something that must be prosecuted and punished because all the latest news of leakers has given the sense that this is somehow ok.

I think we must make them pay and pay hard.

So, if you uncovered classified documents proving Obama and Boehner were in cahoots running an underground pedophile ring staged out of the Lincoln Bedroom, you would just keep quiet?

That's not a "straw man" argument. It's a valid question. A straw man argument presents a situation that appears to, but does not actually, bear on the subject at hand, then shoots it down. This person's question was perfectly relevant, valid, and directly bearing on the subject at hand. Therefore it is not a "straw man".

When people in government or other position of power commit crimes, then cover these crimes up (or attempt to) under a guise of "national security", then the people who subsequently "leak unauthorized information" are patriots, true to the nature of the founding of this country and true to the PEOPLE of this nation. It must be encouraged, not prosecuted nor punished.

Contributing to the cover up invites nothing but corruption and tyranny.

LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas. Just look at do nothing Clinton and the huge smoking crater from 3 GOP Presidencies. Scarily enough, the current crop of GOP candidates are even less qualified to lead the country than either Bush was.

LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being?

Did he say he was going to vote Republican? No.

There are other candidates, you know.

But the fact that most voters don't recognize third party candidates as legitimate is because the press won't. And the attitude that voting for such a candidate is "throwing your vote away" is the main reason we're stuck with this Coke vs. Pepsi two party system when what we really need right now is a drink of water.

There essentially are no third parties. I'm sorry to say it, but you had best realize that now before doing more damage. First past the post is a two-party system. The only cases where a third party gets involved is local parties (ie, nationalist), and that only happens in Europe.

It might not be good, but it is a factual statement. In the US, not voting for someone is voting against.

That's the key, I think - as soon as Americans can learn to ignore the mainstream campaign spew (thus rendering large corporate support completely useless), it will start moving things back the other way.

what he meant is that the touchscreens will be transparent (ie, two way). you know, the ones that are due to be installed in citizens' homes. they already convinced us to carry cell phones with gps, cameras and mics and make it 'fun' for us to always have these on our person. the touchscreens in our homes will be 'sold' to us as another way to enjoy technology. the two-way versions will come later.